Check bouncing and fiscal irresponsibility: Evidence of nonideological shirking by legislators

Kalt and Zupan have measured ideological shirking by legislators. Here we present evidence concerning nonideological shirking. We demonstrate that representatives with more overdrawn checks tend to be more fiscally irresponsible, with fiscal irresponsibility measured by National Taxpayer Union ratings and by representatives' voting behavior on the recent House balanced budget amendment vote.     

Democratic decentralization or political consolidation: The case of local government reform in Karnataka

In 1987 the Indian State of Karnataka implemented panchayat reform legislation. The ideological orientation of the Janata Government's reforms is considered, together with the question of whether stronger local government in India increases the state's autonomy within the federation. The Karnataka reforms are expected to be significantly different from the reforms enacted in other states. Participation by marginalized groups may assist the Janata party in incorporating them into its network of patronage. Local level planning has been made more effective. The legislation gives the zilla parishad control over the line departments of the State Government. Administrative power is likely to experience increased local political direction. However the financial independence of the zilla parishad is by no means assured. The final outcome will also depend upon the attitude towards the reform of the Congress Party, anxious about its power base in the Karnataka countryside.     

Why courts cannot deny ADA protection to plaintiffs who do not use available mitigating measures for their impairments

Congress intended the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to provide strong standards for addressing and eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Many commentators have concluded, however, that the federal courts are undermining the goals of the ADA by too narrowly construing membership in the statute's protected class. One example of this trend is courts' hostile treatment of ADA plaintiffs who do not use medications or devices that might alleviate their impairments ("nonmitigating plaintiffs"). Numerous district and appellate decisions have held or suggested that nonmitigating plaintiffs are not protected by the ADA. In addition, some commentators have proposed that courts should evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to use mitigating measures; they argues that it is unfair to burden an employer with the cost of accommodating a disability that continues to exist only because an employee unreasonably refuses to mitigate it. Contrary to the views of these courts and commentators, however, this Comment will show that nonmitigating plaintiffs are entitled to ADA protection from employment discrimination. It argues that the statute's language, history, and structure, as well as Supreme Court precedent, demonstrate that courts cannot deny ADA protection based on a plaintiff's nonuse of available mitigating measures. It also presents several considerations that weigh against any future congressional enactment that would tie ADA protection to the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to mitigate an impairment.